I agree with Geoff - biggest con by UN/IPCC and finance industry for control and fat profits from trading air. Global temperatures have been falling for a decade and burning all fossil fuel would warm us by only 0.6DegC. People are catching on rapidly and the ETS scheme will surely collapse...and there will be no money for rescues.
3
Sunday, 01 November 2009 14:31
Graham Edward Young
Hi Nick, fair point about the wording. It should have been "the CPRS" not "a CPRS". To make analysis of these questionnaires manageable in the time available I didn't ask a full range of qual questions, so we're not exactly sure what the points of difference are on the CPRS. I'd expect from other work that many Greens voters would object to either the size of the targets or the collection mechanism. But that is just a guess, and therefore not as rigorous as the polling.
So what is your position? What would the CPRS need to have to be acceptable to you? In an ideal world would you prefer another mechanism to the CPRS? If so what would it be.
We can tease some of these issues out on the blog if you are prepared to put in some time.
Thanks for pointing my error out.
4
Monday, 09 November 2009 10:24
Nick Yates
Graham,
I take issue with your statement that "a significant number of those who believe there is an unacceptable risk of catastrophe do not support a CPRS."
The way the survey was constructed, from my memory, asked questions about one specific CPRS, i.e. the Labor party's proposed one. There is a big difference between ruling out any CPRS and not supporting Labor's proposed CPRS. I was one of those Green voters who did not support Labor's proposed CPRS, but would certainly support one that actually reduced GHG emissions and encouraged polluters to change their behaviour, rather than showering them with cash and free permits.
I think Greens, Liberal and National voters all have very different reasons for not supporting the CPRS, and your survey misses what would be some very interesting data this by lumping them all together.
Hi Nick, fair point about the wording. It should have been "the CPRS" not "a CPRS". To make analysis of these questionnaires manageable in the time available I didn't ask a full range of qual questions, so we're not exactly sure what the points of difference are on the CPRS. I'd expect from other work that many Greens voters would object to either the size of the targets or the collection mechanism. But that is just a guess, and therefore not as rigorous as the polling.
So what is your position? What would the CPRS need to have to be acceptable to you? In an ideal world would you prefer another mechanism to the CPRS? If so what would it be.
We can tease some of these issues out on the blog if you are prepared to put in some time.
Thanks for pointing my error out.
Graham,
I take issue with your statement that "a significant number of those who believe there is an unacceptable risk of catastrophe do not support a CPRS."
The way the survey was constructed, from my memory, asked questions about one specific CPRS, i.e. the Labor party's proposed one. There is a big difference between ruling out any CPRS and not supporting Labor's proposed CPRS. I was one of those Green voters who did not support Labor's proposed CPRS, but would certainly support one that actually reduced GHG emissions and encouraged polluters to change their behaviour, rather than showering them with cash and free permits.
I think Greens, Liberal and National voters all have very different reasons for not supporting the CPRS, and your survey misses what would be some very interesting data this by lumping them all together.